ARTICLES 130-133 of the Family Code of the Philippines

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

TITLE IV: Property Relations between Husband and Wife 

Chapter 3. Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Section 7. Liquidation of the Conjugal Partnership Assets and Liabilities

Article 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugal partnership property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.

            If no judicial proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the conjugal partnership property either judicially or extra-judicially within one year from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six-month period no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the conjugal partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be void.

            Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage. (n)

ü  Termination by death:

Ø  Conjugal Partnership of Gains shall be inventoried, administered and liquidated and the debts shall be paid.

Ø  Settlement of the estate of the deceased may be intestate or testate.

Ø  Heirs of legal age or minors duly represented by their judicial or legal representatives may, without securing letters of administrator from the court, divide the estate among themselves.

Article 131. Whenever the liquidation of conjugal partnership properties of two or more marriages contracted by the same person before the effectivity of this Code is carried out simultaneously, the respective capital, fruits and income of each partnership shall be determined upon such proof as may be considered according to the rules of evidence. In case of doubt as to which partnership the existing properties belong, the same shall be divided between the different partnerships in proportion to the capital and duration of each. (189a)

ü  Simultaneous liquidation of the conjugal partnership properties of each of the two marriages contracted prior to August 3, 1988

ü  For instance, the inventoried assets of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains are Php 150,000.00. If the 1^st marriage lasted for 2 years, it will get 2/5 of the Php 150,000.00. If the 2^nd marriage lasted for 3 years, it will get 3/5 of the Php 150,000.00.

Article 132. The Rules of Court on the administration of estates of deceased persons shall be observed in the appraisal and sale of property of the conjugal partnership, and other matters which are not expressly determined in this Chapter. (187a)

ü  The administration of estates of deceased persons shall be observed in the appraisal and sale of property of the conjugal partnership guided by the rules of court.

Article 133. From the common mass of property, support shall be given to the surviving spouse and to the children during the liquidation of the inventoried property until what belongs to them is delivered; but from this shall be deducted that amount received for support which exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to them. (188a)

ü  Only the surviving spouse and the children are entitled to get the allowances for support

ü  Allowances for support to the children and the spouse of the deceased pending liquidation of the estate are subject to collation and deductible from their share of the inheritance insofar as they exceed what they are entitled to as fruits or income 

References:

Judge Albano, Ed Vincent S. (2017). Family Code of the Philippines

CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016

MELECIO DOMINGO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GENARO MOLINA AND ELENA B. MOLINA, SUBSTITUTED BY ESTER MOLINA, Respondents.

PONENTE: Justice BRION

FACTS:

ü  In June 1951, Sps. Anastacio and Flora Domingo bought a property at Camiling, Tarlac, consisting of one-half undivided portion over 18,164 sq. m., parcel of land.

ü  During his lifetime Anastacio has been borrowing money from the respondent Sps. Genaro and Elena Molina.  

ü  Ten years after the death of Flora, Anastacio sold his interest over the property to the Sps. Molina to answer for his debts.  

ü  The sale was registered and the entire one-half undivided portion was transferred to the Sps. Molina.

ü  Petitioner Melecio, one of the children of Anastacio learned about the transfer so he filed a complaint for Annulment of Title and for Recovery of Ownership against respondents Sps. Molina.  

ü  Melecio claims that Anastacio gave the subject property to the Sps. Molina to serve as collateral for the money that his father borrowed.  

ü  He further alleged that his father Anastacio could not have validly sold the interest over the property without Flora’s consent, as the latter died at the time the sale was made.

ü  On the other hand, Sps. Molina asserted that Anastacio surrendered the title of the subject property to answer for his debts and told Sps. Molina that they own already half of the land.  

ü  The Sps. Molina have been in possession of the subject property before the title was registered under their names and have religiously paid the property’s real estate taxes.

ü  RTC dismissed the case because Melecio failed to establish that Anastacio did not sell the property to the Sps. Molina.   RTC ruled further that Anastascio could dispose of conjugal property without Flora’s consent since the sale was necessary to answer for conjugal liabilities.  

ü  Melecio filed an MR but denied by the RTC.  So he assailed the case before the CA.

ü  CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.  It gave credence to the OCT annotation of the disputed property sale.  It further held that Flora’s death is immaterial because Anastacio only solve his rights, excluding that of Flora’sinterest.  

ü  CA explained that “there is no prohibition against the sale by the widower of real property formerly belonging to a conjugal partnership of gains”.  Melecio filed MR but the same was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of a conjugal property to the Sps. Molina without Floras consent is valid?

HELD: Yes. The sale of the conjugal property to the Sps. Molina is valid even without Floras consent.  The SC held that the Sps. Anastacio and Flora got married before the Family Code took effect on Aug. 3, 1988 so their property relation is conjugal partnership.   Anastacio and Flora’s conjugal partnership was dissolved upon Floras death pursuant to Article 126 (1) of the Family Code.

Art. 130 of the Family Code which provides that any disposition or encumbrances involving the conjugal property without prior liquidation of the partnership shall be void, this rule does not apply since the provision of the Family Code shall be “without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.

The SC cited Taningco vs. Register of Deeds of Laguna wherein the court held that the properties of a dissolved conjugal partnership fall under the regime of co-ownership among the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased.  In the case at bar, an implied co-ownership among Flora’s heirs governed the conjugal properties pending liquidation and partition.  Anastacio, owns one-half of the original conjugal partnership properties as his share, but this is an undivided interest.

Thus, under Article 493 of the Civil Code on co-ownership Anastacio, as co-owner, cannot claim title to any specific portion of the conjugal properties without an actual partition being first done either by agreement or by judicial decree. But, Anastacio had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest in the subject property.

Retrieved from: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_200274_2016.html